Loading...
1 Surface Water Management Plan (continued from 4-4-06)MEMORANDUM To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director CITYOF From: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator CMUSFN Date: May 2, 2006 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Re: Continuation of Public Hearin for Surface Water Management Plan SWMP g g ( ) Chanhassen, MN 55317 Update Administration Phone:952.227.1100 BACKGROUND Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections On April 4, 2006, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the agency Phone: 952.227.1180 review draft of the City's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). Fax: 952.227.1190 Comments were received from two members of the public. Verbatim minutes are attached (Attachment 1). Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 DRAFT PLAN Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952,227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us The draft plan is available on the City's website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. A link to the Surface Water Management Plan Update page is available on the right-hand edge of the page under "What's New." If members of the public would like a copy of the draft plan on CD-ROM, a limited number are available at City Hall upon request. A hard copy of the draft plan is also available for public review during normal business hours at City Hall. Comments will continue to be received until the end of the agency comment period on May 30, 2006. City staff will work with the consultant following the close of the public hearing to receive agency comment and respond to those comments. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive any additional public comment on the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. 'Upon receipt of comment from all persons present wishing to address the matter, staff recommends that the Planning Commission close the, public hearing, then make any comments they have on the plan. After all Planning Commissioners' comments are received, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion; "The Planning Commission tables action on the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan until all public and agency comments can be incorporated." ATTACHMENTS I. April 4, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes 2. Comments from Park and Recreation Director, dated April 7, 2006 3. Comments from Environmental Resources Specialist, dated April 20, 2006 The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4, 2006 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, and Deborah Zorn MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Thomas Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail PUBLIC HEARING: SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATED PLAN. Public Present: Name Address Frank Mendez 7361 Kurvers Point Road Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive Erin Krueger SEH Ron Leaf SEH Sacchet: Lori, you giving us the staff report for that please. Haak: I will be introducing yes. Chairman Sacchet and Planning Commissioners, as you're aware the city staff has been working with SEH to develop a draft surface water management plan. This plan is intended to update our inventory of all of our infrastructure as well as really guide surface water management in Chanhassen through the next 10 years or so. A draft plan is available on the city's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. It's under the what's new heading and if members of the public would like copies of this, it's available either on CD Rom or copies are available during business hours at Chanhassen City Hall and the Chanhassen Library. City staff is going to, tonight the purpose of tonight's public hearing is to receive comment on the draft plan and following the receipt of that comment, we will be developing responses to those comments. Staff is asking that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and then continue that public hearing to your May 2nd meeting so that we can receive any additional public comment that comes in in that time. So that's the recommendation from staff. At this Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 time I'd like to introduce and invite Ron Leaf from SEH to come up. Ron is going to share a little bit about the background of the plan and following that we'd be happy to take questions from the Planning Commission and we ask you at that time to open public hearing and then continue it to the May 2nd meeting. Sacchet: Thank you Lori. Ron, do you want to jump in? Ron Leaf: Thank you Lori. Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I'm pleased to be here tonight to give you an overview of the draft surface water plan. I want to emphasize that this is a draft plan, as Lori did, and Lori mentioned we've been working with city staff to develop this draft but ultimately it becomes your plan and I think that's a key point in this public hearing process is that the public has a chance to comment. Staff then provides some comments and continue to do that. It really becomes a plan that the city will use in the years to come and it becomes your plan. Having said that, I am going to use the overhead camera here, if I'm on the right spot. We're going to talk about the surface water management plan and give you some background. Some insight into some of the information that's in the plan, and then what the plan intends to do as the city moves forward. Lori mentioned the plans and update to a plan that was first established in 1994. Really two main things that the plan has attempted to do. Achieve compliance with some regulatory programs. There's a state program. The Metropolitan Surface Water Management program, and a federal program which is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program. The plan really addresses the first item but because the items are so related, it incorporates many of the requirements of the NPDES program as well. Tries to achieve some efficiencies in that process. The second main item is really just to coordinate an overall surface water management plan by updating the goals and policies. These things change, surface water management programs have changed over time, and since 1994 really the state of the art and storm water management and some of the things that are being done and required are changing literally on the fly these days, so need to continually update these goals and policies. As part of that then, the next step is to update the goals. The development standards to support those goals and policies and in part to develop and create some new management tools, as Lori mentioned. An inventory of some of the infrastructure and the wetlands throughout the city. We'll touch on those briefly. Some of the new and refined tools that the plan, the planning process has developed include an inventory of the storm system, including ponds, storm sewer structures, and a number of treatment systems throughout the city. A hydrologic model update that will be used by city staff to review developments and evaluate the system response to proposed developments in the future. A wetland inventory and assessment which really covers a lot of ground. Field work that looked at nearly 400 wetlands throughout the city and evaluated the functions, the values, the type of wetland it was so that staff then can use that in the decision making process for projects again that come before the city. And finally, an update on the status of the city's lakes and surface water bodies was completed. I'm going to take just a minute to highlight some of the data that was collected to develop these tools. This is just a screen shot of the tool that city staff will have available. It's hard to see the specific storm points but what's important here is staff will have at their fingertips the ability to click on a storm structure for example and pull up some information that was collected. The type of structure and be able to use that in development reviews. This also was a key component in addressing the NPDES permit program because the city was required to inspect each of these structures on an annual basis and on a 5 year basis as required in different parts of the permit. Another one of the tools, 2 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 that's just the data behind the inventory. Another one of the tools, I mentioned the hydrologic model update. I don't intend to get into detail here but really breaking the city down into drainage areas and detention areas, treatment areas throughout the city in a comprehensive city wide hydrologic model. Also conducted a MnRAM assessment. Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for wetlands throughout the city and identified the type and locations and approximate boundaries of each of those nearly 400 wetlands. And again that will be available to the city in a data format that can be taken into account as developments come before the city. Another one of the tools is really just a process by which city staff can help make decisions on the priority basis of given projects. I won't go through this table in detail but it's both ES-2 in the Executive Summary of the plan. What it intends to do is identify some of the priority resources from a preserve level, which includes the crown jewels as the task force members identified. Seminary Fen and Assumption Creek. To improve one, improve two and improve three categories related to the status of those water bodies and the need to improve those and sets the bar for future treatment needs, both for city projects in order to set the example, and for development projects that come before the city. We also looked at the status of the surface waters throughout the city. I mentioned briefly that Assumption Creek and Seminary Fen, the crown jewels that as part of the evaluation, looking at the water quality trends, in general the trends are that the water bodies are improving, or at least steady. There are some impaired waters, and as more waters are assessed by the MPCA, it's very possible that additional waters would be classified as impaired. But a couple of those key water bodies are Riley and Lotus Lakes. There is some work to be done in those watersheds and the plan addresses many projects that are potential improvements in water quality for those watersheds. And then at the bottom here, Bluff and Riley Creeks are also listed for turbidity which is another indicator of sediment loading to a stream section. I think with that, I just wanted to give you an idea of what the lake trend analysis and just a snap shot looks like. What this looks at here is the water clarity of the given lake. In this case we're looking at Lotus Lake, and you can see that the data generally shows that the clarity, the secchi disk reading is increasing. It's going from roughly 2 feet in 1979-1980 to somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 feet. 4 to 5 feet in current years, so that trend is good. Is it there yet? Not quite. It still needs some improvement but this is the type of trend that we looked at to identify where a given lake fit within that priority system in the previous table. So with that analysis that was completed, look at what are the outcomes and program implementation activities of the plan. We mentioned NPDES permit compliance. Some of that's done. Some of that will be done on an ongoing basis. The staff continues to inspect the system. Maintain the system. Make improvements into the storm system. It also identifies a prioritization of work plan items. Within the appendix is a detailed list of potential storm water ponding, treatment area projects that fit within each of the priority water bodies, and so staff can use that to develop a plan of attack. For a given project or for the city's own projects. There's a couple of ordinance updates that are required by the NPDES permit, but also that would be needed to fully implement the plan, including recommendations for wetland management and for storm water development standards. And finally one of the final items of the plan is really to establish some budgeting expectation. What is the capital improvements program look like to support the needs of the plan? In order to get there, there's some public input and technical review, which is continuing today and through the next couple of months. Task force meetings. There were 7 meetings that took place with a number of task force members. A technical committee meetings which made up of the watershed district staff that have responsibility and authority over portions of Chanhassen. And then this public hearing which is opening today and ending on May 2na Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 Again just to highlight the plan as drafted is available on the city's web site under what's new. I also want to recognize the task force members. I won't mention them all by name but you see one of your very own here on the Planning Commission was a member of this task force and provided great input into the process, and look forward to additional comments from that group as we move into the final stages of this plan. Quickly look at the expected time line for completion of the plan. There was initial draft that was sent internally to staff and the task force members in January. That resulted in some fairly substantial revisions and production of this agency review draft. What is this agency review draft mean? It means now it has also been submitted to the watershed districts, Riley -Purgatory Watershed District, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Carver and Hennepin County Watershed Agencies and the Metropolitan Council. Did I miss one? Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, thank you Lori.. Since submitted to them they have 60 days to review the plan and provide comments to the city. That process then would officially close for those comments on May 301'. Staff and SEH would then respond to those comments and gain approvals from the watershed districts ideally in June and then come back to Planning Commission public meeting in June for recommendation from this group to the council to adopt the plan and again the plan at this point is to have that occur in June. Production and delivery of a final draft late June, possibly early July. So let's take a look at some of the, you know the meat and potatoes here of the work plan and what does the plan recommend. I've broken this down into the goals and policies section if you will, and just highlighted a few of the key recommendations. From a water quantity, of flooding, you know perspective, there's two key things and the first would be to continue to look at options for addressing the high water levels that occurred on Lotus Lake. Understand there is some information that was reviewed many years ago and we intend to take a closer look at that and see what's already been reviewed but something that still needs to be addressed. Also to review easements and emergency overflows on city ponds and drainage systems. You go back to October of last year, we had some storms in early October and again in mid October that were fairly substantial in many areas of the metropolitan area experienced some localized flooding as a result of these storms that were anywhere from 4 inches to 6 inches in some cases. Really highlighted the needs to review these easement coverages that is city drainage and utility easements and the need for emergency overflows so that properties surrounding these detention areas aren't inundated if an outlet pipe gets plugged or debris gets in the pipe and it's not functioning properly. So that's a key thing for city staff to look at as well. Water quality issues. Really to continue to protect those crown jewels, Seminary Fen and Assumption Creek and strive to improve Lotus, Riley Lakes, Bluff and Riley Creeks and I mentioned the table in the back of the appendix that identifies the priority basis and lists the number of pond projects that are available for staff to pick and choose from as opportunities arise. And then to maintain the other water bodies as, to continue those steady trends. Obviously you'd like to address everything now but funding is limited. You can't take everything off at once so, looked to further prioritize the plan as we move forward in the next couple of months. Additional items in the work plan. Wetlands. We talked about the MnRAM data system. That will be used on an ongoing basis to guide future decisions and I mentioned an update to the wetland ordinance. Erosion and sediment control had a fair amount of discussion with task force on this item. Really just to try and get our hands more on the need to really put a much more focused effort on this. The city now works with some county staff to do this but really to understand where some other improvements could be made as some of these larger projects, Trunk Highway 12 come through, in addition to city led projects throughout the area. And then to identify some opportunities to S Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 restore and stabilize scours at system outlets. Again as part of the drainage system inspection process, we didn't identify a lot of those but there are a few throughout the city that could use some attention. And again, the final thing here is the finance and regulatory responsibilities. The city wants to maintain adequate funding and you need to both to comply with your goals and achieve your goals but also to comply with the NPDES permit program. To continue to inspect and maintain your system. One thing that's not listed here, it was a late but very good addition to the plan, goals and policies was the public involvement and participation process. It really relates to all of these goal areas. That has to be a key part of everything and the city has some good activities and will continue to move ahead with educating the public, educating developers and educating internal staff and commission members like yourselves, so we all are on the same page with what needs to happen and what's feasible to happen in the field. As far as the implementation plan summary, I'm not sure if you can see that. Yeah, if you zoom in a little bit here. This is really just a summary of a larger table that's in the plans. Break it down into some groupings to give an order of magnitude as far as an annual need to maintain, to program and to achieve some of the goals for water quality. It's broken down into 3 categories, planning costs, capital construction costs and then ongoing operation and maintenance. It's not a full list. City staff has other costs that are putting other funding programs but what this is really intended to do is kind of identify on an annual basis what's needed to support the ongoing construction, capital costs and planning costs as far as studies, reviewing easements, system upgrades for data management systems, that type of thing. In the final analysis that we came up with, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $400,000 a year in total. About $350 of that would be for capital construction costs for pond projects. So the city could pick ponds off the list and on a prioritized basis and do about $350,000 of pond projects per year and complete the list in the plan within, the timeframe that we looked at was about 15 years so, that's the time horizon. So that's a quick snapshot at what's in the plan and kind of the details of the implementation plan, and that's really all I want to do is just a quick 15 minute overview of the plan and from there I'll leave it back to Lori or to the commission. Sacchet: Thank you. So our role tonight, to clarify with staff is to hold the public hearing. Not so much to give comments ourselves because the public hearing is going to stay open and then at the end we make comment, is that more the idea? Haak: That's right. At this time staff would just like to get that first flush of public comment. Then we can take some time to review those comments and respond to those in writing. Those will be included in your next packet and then at that next Planning Commission meeting, if the. commission has questions, we'd like to answer those at that time. Sacchet: With that I'd like to open the public hearing on this topic. Is there anybody here who'd like to comment on the watershed plan for the city of Chanhassen? Yes. If you would state your name and address for the record please. You may want to pull the microphone towards you please. Gary Carlson: Thank you very much. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62°d Street. We're here on another matter but you're mentioning your jewels. Our end of the city really appreciates Lake Minnewashta and you didn't mention that, and you didn't mention Minnewashta Creek that controls the level of Lake Minnewashta. It's the only outflow of Lake Minnewashta. All of the Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 Arboretum, University of Minnesota Arboretum, great part of the city, drains into Lake Minnewashta and it's outflow right now is just, it's outflow is determined only by whatever that beached level sand was left at last fall. And the river, whatever that, there could be some study there and I just wanted that to be as part of the emphasis because we're at the corner of the city. We don't get much attention and I know everyone up in our area would be really, really concerned about that. Thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Do you want to say something to that Lori? Haak: Yeah, I can actually speak to that real briefly. The city has looked at that outlet in the past and that is something that we've considered doing. Really it's true, right now the outlet is controlled by a sandy area so we were looking, we actually had the DNR permit for it but weren't able to get that going, but we do intend to continue to look at that outlet. Sacchet: Excellent. Anybody else would like to address this item? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record please and let us know what you have to say. Steve Donen: Yes, my name is Steve Donen and I live at 7341 Frontier Trail and I live basically on Lotus Lake and I guess first of all I was glad to see that you mentioned the outflow on Lotus Lake. I actually walked over it to it today and was disappointed in seeing how much flow was going out. The lake is, it's relatively high. I don't know the numbers. Obviously the ice is just starting to come off but it is high. It is not flowing well. I don't know whether it's plugged in there or what's going on, but it isn't flowing well. I didn't have a chance to call Lori today and let her know. She usually gets a call from me a couple times a year anyways but just doesn't look like, it doesn't look like any of the fish things are plugged up or, you know it looks like it's purely the hole that leaves isn't big enough to manage the water flow. It does cause high waters and it does, and we haven't had a real wet season and the water is high this year again, as last year was, so I'm glad to see that and if there's anything we can do. I do represent a few of us as Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization that we're just starting so we would like to be as much as we can involved in this whole process. We are glad to see you working on the process. I think as a community the 11 lakes in Chanhassen and all the wetlands and everything else are our crown jewels for everybody. For me especially Lotus Lake. I guess I have a couple things to mention in this whole plan. I've only been able to see the plan since what Monday or Tuesday of last week and I've been traveling so I haven't had a chance to read it in great detail, but I will. Okay. I had a few comments. First of all on the secchi disk reading, I'm not sure when they take those readings. I like, you know I've been on lakes where I can see my feet most the time and in Lotus Lake I, unless you are there right before the lake turns over in early spring, I can't see my belly button. So it's not very good. I'm not sure where we get 5 feet secchi disk from. It's just timing on the data but I think the data is a little bit suspect personally. I spend about 250 hours a year on that lake. So I just think that we make sure our data's good because something seems to be not matching what I see. Secondly I guess as a big thing for me with working in the public. Not in public but in the private sector as an engineer, I get goals in my life. Every year I have goals. Every 3 to 5 years objectives and goals and all that kind of stuff and I see goals and what are kind of goals but I've been taught over the years that goals need to be smart goals so they're measurable. How are we doing against the goals? Since '92, as I read some of the introductions in this package, it's been flat. Slight increases. I don't know what the goal was. Did we do 31 Planning Commission Meeting — April 4, 2006 good against the goals that we set back then? Did we not? So I guess I'd like to see as a part of your plan, kind of set yourselves some goals. How we doing? Okay, and maybe have some kind of reporting mechanism that we report it every year how we're doing against the goals. So measurable things that we can try to hit. The other thing is, there are some action plans. They tend to be, I thought they were pretty general and left a lot open for discussion and again I'm going to volunteer myself and members of my group to, organization to maybe help with some of that work. On how to turn these things into actual plans that we go do, and if we need the help with funding or something else that we can help with, we'd obviously be willing to help. So I guess that's kind of the comments. We would just like to be involved and set goals and let's measure against them. Okay? And you guys are the Planning Commission. You have a real challenge in trying to match the plans and the ordinances and make sure we stick with those things as they go forward and as developers come in and try to do things. We need to make sure we stick with our standards and maintain those so, up to you guys and all of us to make sure it happens so thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Excellent comments. Anybody else who would like to address our surface water management plan and update? This is your chance. If there's nobody getting up, I'll bring it back here. We are leaving this hearing open, and as a matter of fact I'd like to ask if somebody would want to make a motion formally leave this hearing open so that we anchor that in. Larson: I can do that. You want to do it? Zorn: Go ahead. Larson: The Planning Commission continues the public hearing for surface water management plan update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Sacchet: So that's the motion that Debbie makes. Do we have a second? Zorn: Second. Larson moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission table the public hearing for the Surface Water Management Plan Update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sacchet: So this hearing stays open and I would expect that commissioners will have a chance to make comment on the May 2nd when this is addressed again as well. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK: REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR REDUCED PARKING SETBACK AT SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING, APPLICANT, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE NO.06-11. 7 0 MEMORANDUM CITYOF TO: Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator CHMMSSFN 7700 Market Boulevard FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 DATE: April 7, 2006 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 SUBJ: Review Comments — Second Generation Surface Water Fax: 952.227.1110 Management Plan Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax:952.227.1190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Engineering Phone: 952227.1160 • ES-1: Bluff Creek runs nearly the entire length of the City of Chanhassen. Y g Y Fax: 952.227.1170 • I wonder whether or not the Arboretum should be identified as a "park." Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Lake Ann Park is the most widely visited park within the City and should Fax: 952.227.1110 be called out. Park & Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 • A thought about priorities — labeling Assumption Creek and Seminary Fen Fax: 952.227.1110 as "crown jewels" may be misleading. The fen and Assumption Creek are Recreation Center highly sensitive and valuable natural resources; however, it is my belief 2310 Coulter Boulevard that our eleven lakes, especially Minnewashta, Lucy, Ann, Lotus, Susan Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 and provide infinitely more value to our community. Rileyy P Y y Planning & • ES-4: Should Lake Ann and Lake Lucy be classified as Recreational Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Development? Fax: 952.227.1110 • Acknowledgments: Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 All Department Heads are involved in the management of our water Fax: 952.227.1310 resources and should be 'acknowledged. Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 INTRODUCTION Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us • Vision Statement #3: ■ Same issue with the labeling of "crown jewels." The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Ms. Lori Haak April 7, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND, HISTORY AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT • Page 9: ■ I wonder whether or not the Arboretum should be identified as a "park." Lake Ann Park is the most widely visited park within the City and should be called out. ■ The word "some" to describe areas of commercial and industrial land use is understated. The word numerous is a more accurate description. ■ The downtown is likely the largest contiguous area of commercial/industrial use. However, the total area of commercial/industrial use outside the downtown is considerably larger. • Page 15: ■ The boat ramp at Lake St. Joe is not listed in Table 4. GOALS AND POLICIES • Page 21: ■ I think some, especially those involved in the repair process, would call the damage from last fall's rain significant. A number of structures remain damaged or are in the process of being repaired. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES: • Page 42, Table 22, Lake Physical Characteristics: ■ Lucy should list boating/swimming/fishing. ■ St. Joe should list boating/swimming/fishing. e Page 46, Lake Lucy: ■ The vast majority of land on Lake Lucy is privately owned. • Page 50: ■ Note that the public access for Lake Riley is located within an Eden Prairie City Park. • Page 51: ■ It should be noted that a winter aeration system is utilized on Lake Susan in the event of low oxygen levels. ■ It should be noted that the existing carp barrier is marginally effective. Ms. Lori Haak April 7, 2006 Page 3 • Page 57: ■ Assumption Creek: It should be noted that the present condition of some shoreline areas along Assumption Creek is far from pristine. A variety of dump sites (past and present) are located on the Assumption Creek property. Bluff Creek: The presence of extensive public walking trails throughout the Bluff Creek corridor should be noted. These trails are integral to the future health of the corridor. When people are able to "experience" these settings, they are far more likely to participate in their preservation. It should be noted that two very significant escarpments exist in the lower section of Bluff Creek. These cliffs are quite spectacular in there size and form, but could create serious land management issues in the future. There is also a strong likelihood that the meandering process of Bluff Creek will reroute the creek away from the base of these cliffs slowing the erosion of their face walls. WETLAND MANAGEMENT • Page 83: ■ Comments will be provided upon receiving mapping for the parcel sites. MAPPING The 32-acre parkland acquisition currently identified as the "Fox" parcel is not shown on the maps. G:\park\th\Surface Water Management Comments.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Lori Haak, Wetland Resources Coordinator CITY OF FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist CHMNSEN DATE: April 20, 2006 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJ: Surface Water Management Plan Update Draft review Administration I was unable to complete a full review of the SWMP and so am unsure if these Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 issues are already covered within the plan. They are: Building Inspections Is the role of vegetation as an important tool in slowing runoff Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 addressed within the plan? • Because of this importance, it is undesirable to remove wooded areas Engineering for the construction of stormwater ponds. Is their a prioritized list for Phone:52,227.1170 Fax: 952227.1170 sighting ondin and if so, do trees/vegetation etation have a ranking? g g p g g g• • Planting trees should be encouraged also as a way to reduce runoff and Finance erosion. Is this part of the long-term implementation plan? Phone: 952.227.1140 Tree planting should be included in all new ` and construction. p g p Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation I appreciate your consideration of these issues. Phone: 952,227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen,mn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.